Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
you're kidding right?
Meh, go with Matt Damon. He wanted to play Kirk b4 ST 2009 he'd work on a discount.
Pine needs to be there seriously
This may be the case, but considering the box office returns of these Kelvinverse films you'd think Paramount would be serious about maintaining a tighter budget. So they may not be bluffing.
If they can't lower the budget there's really no point in making this film because it's never going to do Marvel type numbers.
they might be serious, but they might also cave now that it's public and the pressure is on.
You don't know they're doing it out of greed. Robert Downey Jr. insists on lucrative contracts for his Marvel work so, among other things, he can make large contributions to charity and work on indie films at a much lower rate. In the music world, though with a magnitude lower amount of money (it was some decades ago) Bill Bruford would take drumming gigs that paid a lot of money every so often so he could finance small jazz projects that were not profitable, but dear to him. But perhaps they are greedy. So what? No one put a gun to Paramount's head when they signed the deal in the first place. Again, the world of big Hollywood studio filmmaking is NOT a charity. Moreover, your argument would make sense if the money saved from a reduced pay rate would go to some sort of altruistic endeavour. It wouldn't. It will go into the pockets of Paramount shareholders. What do they actually produce? At least the actors participate in the production of the entertainment.
I'm glad you know better than they do what they should be doing with their earnings. They negotiated a deal in good faith. They should get what they agreed to receive. Besides, it's California--a higher salary for them means higher tax revenue for the state, thus contributing to the general welfare of the state's residents (and higher tax revenue for the US government--same principle).
If there was any real chance the money you decry as salary to the actors was going to fund more health care for the indigent, or expand soup kitchens for the homeless, or fund housing for them, etc.--ok. But no actor owes a major, for-profit studio a "hometown discount" just so shareholders can make a bit more profit (and poor people don't own shares in corporations, so it's not like it would benefit the poor). If the choice is money to the performer (someone who provides labour) or money to the shareholder (who produces nothing), the performer should get it. I'm certainly not going to cry for the shareholders.
Also, the actors don't "owe the fans" anything either. "We" don't "deserve" to demand they take a pay cut to ensure we get "our movie". "We" are not a charity case either.
Some good points. I ultimately just want a Star Trek 4 as a fan. However, these men should do whatever they like for themselves personally, even if I end up disappointed. I just think there is too much of a "you can never have too much money" mentality in the world. It causes so much suffering, though I'm not saying Hemsworth or Pine are responsible for that. Just alot of capitalistic brainwashing of "greed is good" out there.
I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that some "jobs" are overly well-paid. I recall explaining to my mother, decades ago, why a hockey player make 5 times what my dad made working construction (at a time when the gap was much smaller than today for the respective jobs) and why the market is distorted in that fashion. I shared her sense of unfairness but also understood the nature of a market economy. Moreover, as exorbitant as athlete and entertainment salaries appear, they are, in percentage terms, far less than the revenue of their employers, so some adjustment upward from the days before free agency in sports and the end of the studio contract system for actors was warranted.
While this is straying well off topic, there was a time, historically, when progressive taxation rates significantly higher than those in place today accompanied a more even distribution of wealth and a dramatic increase in wealth creation overall. Sadly, the social consensus that sustained that system has largely crumbled, fueled by what you describe as the "you can never have too much money" mentality. However, that mentality existed prior to the consensus that has diminished, so it is possible it might return. In any event, I don't want to digress further. I will say that within the existing system, the fairness issue favours the actors' stance. In a future post-scarcity economy (one I won't live long enough to see), this kind of problem won't be an issue. I'm sure others will come along to fill the void.
It's all relative. At the the end of the day, it's still just a job to these people, and I would imagine making movies on this scale is bloody hard work, it certainly won't be a '9 to 5'. If pine says he has a deal in place why should he take a cut? He's not exactly a top tier Hollinwood star, his career isn't guaranteed to last as long as someone like say, Tom Cruise, so he's got every right to protect his interests.
As far as Hemsworth is concerned, then either rewrite the story to not include him or recast his role. He is nowhere near as important as Pine being in the movie.
As far as Hemsworth is concerned, then either rewrite the story to not include him or recast his role. He is nowhere near as important as Pine being in the movie.
Chris Hemsworth was great as George Kirk. That being said they can recast the role. They got to get Pine back if they're going to make this a sequel to the three JJverse movies.
For fuck's sake guys. Sort your shit out, Paramount.
i love how you won't let it go!! We were robbed - comic adaptation please IDW?!
Quinto, Saldana, Pegg, Cho and Urban back with a new Kirk would be so darn odd! A recast George would still be jarring but less damaging
Damon is a decade older than Pine but it could work.
I dunno about this one - would a simple recast work or could it kill the series? Pine is a megastar now, he's currently doing WW84, clearly he's interested in pursuing other things.
We've already lost poor Anton
It worked for Tarzan and James Bond. It worked for Bruce Banner and War Machine. It arguably worked for Batman.
Yeah but they're in different continuities of their respective characters. People baulked at recasting anton, I certainly don't want to see another kirk in the kelvin timeline.
The Yes 'Union' tour for example...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
